Vijay Mallya deliberately didn't disclose full assets: Banks tell SC

New Delhi: A consortium of banks including SBI on Monday told the Supreme Court that beleaguered businessman Vijay Mallya had deliberately not made full disclosure of his assets including $40 million which he received in February from a British firm.

Vijay Mallya - Reuters

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the consortium of banks, told a bench of justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman that Mallya has not disclosed the amount which he received in February while he had filed the reply in March.

The Attorney General said that as per the Supreme Court rules, Mallya has to appear before the court after a notice has been served upon him in a contempt petition.

Rohatgi said that since Mallya had not been granted exemption from appearance, he should not be heard anymore.

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Mallya, told the bench that they have filed a petition for recall of apex court's earlier order and said that no contempt has been made.

He also said that the apex court's earlier order to disclose the assets has been complied with.

Giving ten days time to the SBI to file its response, the bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman gave Mallya a week's time to file his rejoinder as it directed the hearing of the matter on 27 September, 2016, the IANS report said.

Mallya's lawyer Mahesh Agarwal said the liquor baron has contended that the disclosure of the assets was for the settlement of outstanding dues with the banks, and since no settlement was taking place he was not obliged to make disclosure and consequently there was no contempt.

The bench then asked the Attorney General to file a response to Mallya's petition for recall of its earlier order and posted the matter on 27 September.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that Mallya's plea for the recall of the order could not be entertained as he has failed to make a personal appearance before the court in pursuance to the contempt notice. However, Justice Nariman asked him to respond to Mallya's application seeking the recall of the contempt notice so that the pleadings in the matter are completed and it is finally heard on any Tuesday.

Earlier, on 25 July, the apex court had issued notice to Mallya on plea of consortium of banks which alleged that he had not disclosed his full assets including $40 million received by him from a British firm.

The apex court, after noting the submissions by Attorney General, had issued notice to Mallya and asked him to respond.

On 14 July, Rohatgi claimed that Mallya had provided wrong details of his assets in a sealed cover to the apex court.

He further said a lot of information had also been concealed, including a cash transaction to the tune of Rs 2500 crore, which amounted to contempt of court. Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought details of assets from Mallya in a sealed cover.

Recently, the consortium of banks had alleged that Mallya was not cooperating in the investigation of cases against him and was averse to disclosing his foreign assets.

In a rejoinder affidavit to Mallya's reply, the banks had said that disclosure of overseas assets by him and his family was significant for recovering the dues.

Rohatgi had earlier said that the beleaguered businessman has also not agreed to deposit "substantial amount" as part of of Rs 9,400 crore loan due on him to establish his bonafide".

Mallya had said the banks had no right over information regarding his overseas movable and immovable assets as he was an NRI since 1988.

He had also claimed that as an NRI, he was not obliged to disclose his overseas assets, and added that his wife and three children, all US citizens, also need not disclose their assets.

The court on 7 April had directed Mallya to disclose by 21 April the total assets owned by him and his family in India and abroad while seeking an indication from him when he would appear before it.

It had asked Mallya, who owes over Rs 9,000 crore to around 17 banks, to deposit a "substantial amount" with it to "prove his bonafide" that he was "serious" about meaningful negotiations and settlement.